Aaron Hicklin writes at Out:
All minorities are acutely sensitive to being belittled and disparaged, and rightly so, but in the febrile world of the Web, it’s easy to take umbrage at every passing slight. We begin to care too much about whether our pasta is too conservative, or if a pizza maker will cater a hypothetical wedding in a state that until just recently didn’t even have marriage equality. We act like petty tyrants exploding in anger whenever someone says something that falls foul of approved policy.
Increasingly, of course, the targets of that anger are other LGBT people, because that is the way tyranny works…
The dismissive snark in the comments to Hicklin’s article on the Out site prove his point.
More. Of course there is and has forever been zealotry on the right, and the anti-gay right (and left) has had state power to use against LGBT people from time immemorial. Now, that’s shifting. The use of the term “zealatry” as applied to those who view themselves as progressives is intentional—why do you want to be like them? And targeting the small working-class vendor with religious-based qualms about gay marriage, with all the rage built up against the forces of intolerance and persecution, is sheer scapegoating. And its ugly. And those who spur on the mob and participate themselves should be ashamed. You are not the force of progressive light; you, too, have a shadow-side. Confront it.
Furthermore. The case of The Tolerant Jeweler Who Harbored an Impure Opinion of Same-Sex Marriage. Also noted by Rod Dreher here:
This Christian jeweler agreed to custom-make engagement rings for a lesbian couple, knowing that they were a couple, and treated them politely. But when they found out what he really believed about same-sex marriage, even though the man gave them polite service, and agreed to sell them what they asked for, the lesbian couple balked, and demanded their money back — and the mob threatened the business if they didn’t yield. Which, of course, he did.
And yes, Dreher is no supporter of gay rights. But our media advocates don’t report on this, do they? Wouldn’t make their readers feel all warm and superior and full of self-righteousness.
16 Comments for “Zealotry”
posted by Doug on
Would Hicklin be making the same argument if African American was substituted for LGBT? Somehow I doubt it. Why is it that we, the LGBT community, are the only minority that are considered hateful tyrants when we object to being discriminated against?
posted by Kosh III on
From the Out commentary:
“the enemy eventually becomes anyone who is not on exactly the same page, exactly the same word, at exactly the same time.”
That’s how the GOP/Teanuts and their sheep do it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Hicklin, like most all of the conservative apologists framing this issue, misses the point.
The issue is not as reductive or personal as Hicklin seems to think. We are not fighting against a handful of misguided conservative Christians (As others have pointed out in other threads, who cares?) but against the latest iteration of a major political party cynically using gays and lesbians as cannon fodder, yet again, to energize the conservative Christian base for short-term political gain. We’ve seen this before (circa 2004-2008) and we will see it again, if the party’s current crop of presidential candidates is any indication.
Let’s look, first, at the facts:
A handful (about a half-dozen, so far) businesses around the country have refused service of one kind or another to gays and lesbians and run afoul of state officials enforcing public accommodations laws. A few more (e.g. the “Hitching Post”), prodded by the Alliance Defending Freedom, have filed preemptive lawsuits complaining that local and/or state officials might enforce public accommodations laws. A few more businesses, not subject to public accommodations laws (local or state) covering sexual orientation, have made public statements to the effect of “Hell, No!”, prompting a media uproar.
Then, next, lets look at the “reaction”:
(1) The conservative Christian anti-gay propaganda machine (AFA, ADF, FRC, Heritage Council and so on) went into action and whipped up a frenzy over the handful of cases, pounding the anti-gay drums, claiming that the incidents are the beginning of an era of anti-Christian persecution that the world has not seen since Christians were tossed to the lions, and that gays and lesbians are determined to wipe out Christianity in America.
(2) The Republican Party, beholden to conservative Christian primary voters, went into action and introduced legislation all over the country singling out gays and lesbians for special discrimination under public accommodations laws, even in states where state public accommodations laws (e.g. Arizona, Indiana) do not protect gays and lesbians. In a significant number of states (e.g. Oklahoma, Texas), the public accommodations special discrimination legislation was accompanied by other forms of anti-gay legislation, ranging from the flat unconstitutional to the plain-ass mean-spritied.
(3) Republican apologists (IGF, Fox News, and so on) picked up the “gays are bullies” trope and began converting the raw (and preposterous) claims of the conservative Christian anti-gay propaganda machine into more “palatable” and “reasoned” form (e.g. converting Tony Perkin’s “boxcar” trope into “Robspierre”), but the apologists’ efforts, although less raw, nonetheless pound the “gays are dangerous and despicable) drum in service of the Republican Party’s political interests.
Reactions (1) and (2) are entirely predictable. The problem is reaction (2). Between the propaganda and legislative efforts, what would have been (and should be) a blip on the radar, has become, yet again, a “national crisis” driving a plethora of ill-conceived, destructive legislation aimed at gays and lesbians. It is the legislation that we are fighting, and rightly so.
Stephen, honey, get this straight: This is not about “zealotry”. It is about yet another round of intentioned, destructive, anti-gay legislation, legislation intended to foster and sanction special discrimination against gays and lesbians under the guise of “religious freedom”. The proposed laws we are fighting are harmful and destructive, not only to the idea of “equal means equal”, but to the idea of “religious freedom” as well.
posted by Jorge on
(With a title like this, will this post be a hit or miss? One thing’s for certain, though. The usual suspects will trash it.)
The dismissive snark in the comments to Hicklin’s article on the Out site prove his point.
Well, they prove something about the GLBT community and its civil rights movement, and whatever it is it’s not good.
Zealotry isn’t a bad guess at what that is. So this post is a hit.
Would Hicklin be making the same argument if African American was substituted for LGBT? Somehow I doubt it.
Wait a minute. The issue here isn’t about serving gays. It’s about catering to a gay wedding. The issue is not a blanket prejudice against gay people. It is a specific prejudice against gay people, one that is about an active social or political issue that has gays as its central cast,.
Given the number of strange racial controversies that have happened recently on similarly specific issues, I’m surprised at your question. The racial version of the pizza controversy is having someone say the word “thug” in response to the Baltimore riots (really? thug?), or asking someone if they’d serve someone wearing a hoodie or baggy pants.
Or better yet, and even today, asking if they’d move out (or close their business) if blacks or possibly even Hispanic people entered their neighborhood–something most people who would, would lie about.
Believe you me, on all of these subjects, depending on the circumstances a spirited defense can be made against the racial outrage–and prevail.
The black and progressive communities have become quite tyrannical in ideology of late. The difference is that because that has been going on for decades, and called out, it has less power than it used to.
posted by Jorge on
That probably should read black and progressive civil rights communities.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Jorge;
I suspect that the better comparison in terms of public accommodation laws whether or not a ‘working class small business owner’ decided not to sell cakes to black couples or interracial couples because his or her religion has objects to such things.
Or suppose the small business owner has objections to other religions, say Catholics and Jews, and does not want to bake a cake that would be used in a Catholic wedding or a Jewish wedding or a Lutheran wedding.
Somehow I suspect that we would not see the same sort of folks coming forward to kindly talk about some awfully selective, quasi-libertarian definition of religious freedom
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Well, they prove something about the GLBT community and its civil rights movement, and whatever it is it’s not good.
The comments, whatever they may be, prove not one damn thing about “the GLBT community and its civil rights movement”. The comments were made by individuals.
posted by Jorge on
Am I to believe they pulled their ideas out of their ass for no reason whatsoever?
I don’t.
Would be mighty convenient if I did, as the comments discussed in the next topic over appear to be even worse. But I don’t.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The alternative is to believe that there is an orchestrated “LGBT community and … civil rights movement” that is responsible for the comments. I don’t see any evidence.
The simple fact is that comment boards, which encourage anonymous comments, are full of half-baked people with quarter-baked ideas.
I take that into consideration when I read the comments in various forums.
I won’t say that commenters who sign their names — their real names — to their comments are any more or any less nuts than those who do not, but at least they are willing to take responsibility for what they post.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, but as I said, they don’t get their ideas from nowhere.
Hate crimes against Muslims went up after 9/11, hate crimes against GLBT people spiked after marriage became a contentious issue, and there were hate murders against police in NYC after a man was killed under suspicious circumstances while the police were trying to take him into custody. When a church in New York posted a sign approving of (if not advocating) Leviticus’s capital punishment decree against gays, it was graffitied. It is a well established pattern: the nutjobs of society follow the broader community’s discontent. They will attack through deplorable means, with bizarre reasoning, those who their community targets and condemns. And yes, I am comparing the commenters to criminals and stand on it.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can only laugh when lectured by a man who continues to support anti-gay politicians about how I as a “progressive” am supposed to act. And if Stephen is so upset about boycotts he should address that issue with right wing groups that call for them almost daily against any pro-gay business. People have a right to show where they want. And if Stephen wants to repeal anti-discrimination laws, he’s welcome to make that case, but special carve outs for one group to discriminate against another (in this case Christians against gay and trans people) is just bizarre. But please if like so many conservatives, you think these laws need to go then propose the legislation to do so. I don’t think you’ll get much traction because most of us know why those laws were passed and want no part of legalized bigotry.
posted by Kosh III on
Stephen should move from his comfy blue equality enclave (which he hates so badly) and move to a place congenial to views: try Sylacauga Alabama where Billy Jack Gaither was murdered for being gay.
Or Houston MIssissippi. Or Trento Ga.
Or any other Red state paradise.
Put yor money where your mouth is Bubba.
posted by clayton on
Stephen might try Louisiana, where:
1) a couple of years ago, there was a legislative movment to have the Bible declared the state book, AND
2) The state has a voucher system which allows parents to use state money to enroll their children in parochial (overwhelmingly Christian) schools, AND,
3) The governor has given public support to teaching Creationism in schools as a theory every bit as valid as evolution, AND
4) where marriage equality does not exist, AND
5) Where LGBT people are not now–nor have they ever been–a protected class, AND
6) Where the governor recently signed a “Marriage and Conscience Bill” prohibiting the state from taking action against those who refuse wedding services to gay couple based upon religious belief, BECAUSE
7) CHRISTIANS ARE BEING PERSECUTED!!!
posted by Mike in Houston on
As others have eloquently pointed out, it’s more than a little tiresome to keep hearing from homocons like Stephen (NY) and Hicklin (CA) and Sully (NY/DC), et al lecturing (hectoring?) from their safe “post-gay” enclaves about how the rest of the country needs to just STFU about equal treatment in the marketplace, employment and housing.
I respect (though often disagree) with Lori — but at least she’s consistent with her principles and is fighting the good fight outside of these blue-state ghettos.
This post (like all the previous ones) should come with the hashtag #aid&comfort .
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… Stephen (NY) …
I am reasonably sure that Stephen lives in the Virginia exurbs of Washington, D.C., since he votes in Virginia:
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes, I do understand what we’re up against, because I have to deal with it, too.